To "ambush" means "to lie in wait and attack by surprise" or "attack suddenly from a concealed position".
This can be applied to several scenarios surrounding the Rugby World Cup recently.
A mouthguard manufacturer denied employing ambush marketing techniques when the Tuilagi brothers copped $10,000 fines for wearing their branded product; Eliota Fuimaono Sapolu has used Twitter to ambush the IRB with rhetoric about racism and an unfair deal for tier-two teams; Steve Tew decided halfway through the tournament would be a great time to surprise the IRB with a veiled threat that if the financial structure of the IRB doesn't change the next World Cup might be an All Blackless tournament; and last, but by no means least, a groin injury decided to attack New Zealand's star first five, Dan Carter, and seriously threaten the team's confidence.
Many of these examples of warfare tactics highlight just how volatile professional rugby can be, especially around the IRB's major money-spinning tournament.
The IRB, like most major sports event organisers, must defend the investments of its major sponsors from non-sponsors hitching a ride on the goodwill of an event.
Ever since the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, when non-sponsor Kodak ambushed official sponsor Fuji, the term "ambush marketing" has been about.
The threat of this kind of marketing tactic gained more impetus at the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta when Nike avoided the US$50 million ($NZ65.7 million) price tag for official sponsorship but still managed to be associated with the event by plastering the city billboards with Nike advertising, handing out swoosh banners to wave at competitions, and erecting an enormous Nike centre overlooking the stadium.
Major sport event organisers soon wised up to these innovative tactics and employed anti-ambushing strategies such as pre-event education and public relation initiatives; on-site policing such as confiscation of products and the creation of clean-zones; contractual agreements with athletes and spectators; and enforcement of special trademark protection legislation.
Recent events at the Rugby World Cup Would suggest loopholes still exist.
The Tuilagi brothers knew what they were doing, and although the mouthguard manufacturers deny it, you can't tell me they weren't somehow involved in encouraging these individuals to break their player agreements.
Sports event organisers will never completely stop non-sponsors from trying to gain a slice of the market at high-profile events.
They, like those trying to catch drug cheats, will just have to try to be one step ahead and maybe, just maybe, the rules need to be relaxed (is marijuana, for instance, really a performance-enhancing drug we should be testing for?).
Although the IRB was semi-prepared for ambush marketing from non sponsors, it has been blindsided by attacks from players and member unions.
Steve Tew (maybe on behalf of the tier-one unions?) has suggested a change in sponsorship arrangements needs to be considered for these events, and Fuimaono Sapolu is the only courageous soul prepared to challenge a global entity regarding its treatment of tier-two unions and Pacific Island teams in particular.
If an organisation's success is judged on how satisfied the stakeholders are, it looks like the IRB is doing a terrible job. The "big boys" are discontent and the minnows are miserable.
When the final whistle is blown on this tournament the power battle will continue behind closed doors, across boardroom tables, in formal media forums, and through social network sites such as Twitter.
Before the "third half" of this tournament starts, however, there is one last ambush I'd like to witness, and that is the surprise attack of New Zealand's replacement first five this weekend.
Who will it be? The Sly Slade, the Burly Bro or the Cocky Cruden? Whoever it ends up being, they're coming from a position of concealment to surprise the opposition so it can only benefit the All Blacks. Let the ambush begin.